Letters to the Editor
Christian Ethics Today may be published spasmodically, but you have such quality spasms!
A Very Nice Woman, Alabama
Christian Ethics Today.. .is substantive.. .1 enjoy its depth…. [Unlike] cheetos and a soft drink [it] is a filling steak dinner.
Medical Doctor, Texas
I have thoroughly enjoyed the thoughtful and refreshing articles contained in the journal. . . . I have enclosed a gift to help you continue the good work.
Informative.. enjoyable. . .inspiring.
Professor, Louisiana Pastor, Texas
You`ve done it again. I`m only through 3 articles on Number 5 of the journal and have already cried and laughed. So here`s my widow`s mite. . .to let you know I care about this worthy venture. The selections are such a nice blend of brilliant, human, upbeat, and humorous.
Professor, Louisiana
Don`t use [those] big words like SELAH unless you intend to tell us what they mean.
Pastor, Texas
[Editors Note. Repent. The end is near.]
I just discovered Christian Ethics Today, and it warmed my heart to find a journal that is so approachable-almost like an old friend I`ve included a. . .donation.
University Professor, Kentucky
I enjoy your publication.. .very much. The recent article by Will Campbell was especially
meaningful. . . . Please accept my enclosed donation. Thanks again for the great job.
Pastor, Texas
I haven`t read the rest of the issue.. .but I just wanted you to know that the first two articles by Bill Moyers and Hal Haralson have me wondering: How can you keep up the pace?
A Friend, Texas
[Editors Note: I`m flagging.]
Here is a small contribution. . . . Thanks for the thoughtful articles.
We really appreciate them. I send excerpts to friends and family frequently.
Businessman, Texas
We think you are doing a great thing…. I have read it from cover to cover. . .1 want to help. . .offset the cost. . . . Thank you for sharing it.
Bi-vocational Minister-Businessman, Texas
This is by far your best issue. I loved it immensely. I felt I had come back from the desert after ten years. I haven`t seen anything this good since.. .the mid-eighties. Good. Keep it up.
Teacher- Write, Texas
Your journal continues to be excellent.
Foreign Service Officer (Ret.), Maryland
[Editor`s Note. Following is a letter printed in its entirety, from a reader who has taken considerable umbrage at Dr. David Lockard`s article on the environment which Christian Ethics Today carried in the last issue. Following that there is a very brief response from Dr. Lockard. And what about me? Oh, I have friends on both sides; and I like my friends. Or have you already been there and heard that?]
Dear Mr. Lockard:
I spasmodically receive an unsolicited publication titled Christian Ethics Today, and have read your article entitled "Conserving Conservation." After a time of bitter reflection, I want to respond to the inconsistency, the wrong headedness, and the inappropriate format of your article. The subject and tenor fly in the face of Christian Ethics, and the article is unfair in such a cogent fashion that it cries out to be denied. Political bias has no place in a pamphlet so called Christian or Ethical. Today is as yesterday and tomorrow so far as ethics go; they do not change.
It is apparent that you are well educated (I have no secondary education as you will quickly surmise) and that you use your manipulative proficiency with great subtlety. You obviously have knowledge of the rules of propaganda, as do most other folks like yourself, and employ them with devastating skill. It is a pity that you did not use your abilities to delve into the undistorted controversy between "tree huggers" and "polluters." Surely, Mr. Lockard, it is unethical to postulate an incomplete argument, giving no counterpoint, and hold it out as a final conclusion to be printed and labeled Christian Ethics Today. To read your article is to replay every current code word of the left-leaning media aristocracy. You quote such scions of mendacity as Al Gore, Molly Ivins, Clinton, a survey by the Peter D. Hart Research Associates, who always "prove" whatever the one who hired them wishes, and EPA officials with an obvious vested interest. You attack the elected Representatives of the people sitting in Congress and condemn the "radical" Right, when the radical "Wrong" are everywhere. I`ve read less political political advertisements. You, Sir, have used name dropping, bogus statistics, card stacking techniques as well as the big lie to sway parochial opinion. Shame on you.
Mr. Lockard, your eight grandchildren are a bigger threat to the environment than any other factor. It is dishonest for you to pretend it is possible to save the environment in the face of ever-increasing world population, when your intelligence assures me you know that it is not true. I would give you my respect, if not my assent, had you had the courage to embrace that unpopular truism. The ongoing environmental movement which is temporarily making incremental gains at such exorbitant cost is a waste and a falsity that will inevitably be overrun by rampant overbreeding. Virility beats intelligence every time, unless it is restrained, and only a fool can contend otherwise. When a rancher allows too many cows to calve in a pasture, they ALL die, not just the few too many. You know this is true. Why don`t you and others in a position of leadership find the valor to use this brief window of opportunity to speak out? It is not popular to tell folks they shouldn`t have two children and eight grandchildren, is it? -that all of us must show the common sense to stop breeding ourselves into oblivion.
Finally, you need to hear the truth about the enforcement agencies. Every single governmental regulatory agency is peopled by psychological cripples who intentionally inflict tyranny onto the people within their control, yes, every one! Staff is an infection that grows and grows like a virus and evil little people find ways to gain the only sick power they`ll ever know. What good comes from their arrogant adversarial attitude? Endless examples are apparent to all men of goodwill to see, if they open their eyes. The regulators regularly set aside the law and cause great harm to innocent people, with no gain whatsoever to the environment. They run through billions of dollars in legal fees and salaries and court costs without any beneficial effect. Common sense should dictate a moratorium on what does not work, and this is not working. Aside from the destruction of industry, the environmental movement is ravaging individual lives and has become an endorsement of misery, whatever else it may have started out to be. The incredible sums of money wasted on regulation that inevitably accomplishes nothing would be sufficient to do whatever is actually needed for clean-up.
Mr. Lockard, you can easily write me off as a nut-case, but I`m going to invite you to entertain my side of this disagreement long enough to weigh your own position. It is easy to confirm everything I have said, and I can and will do so. There is another point of view, you know. Few of the "doers" in this society are articulate enough to respond to the intellectuals representing your side, so the dialog is distorted on our end, but we have the facts in our favor. Please just accept this one comment.., even a bird knows not to foul the nest. What the regulatory battle is all about involves unjust power, nothing more, nothing less. Americans can not, will not endure injustice, tyranny, or inept bullies and we will rid ourselves of every one.
Truly,
Gene E. Beard
Kerrville, TX
Dr. Lockard responds:
Dear Mr. Beard:
You accuse me of making a biased and incomplete argument regarding the environment. I plead, Guilty as charged.
The first segment presented a brief review of biblical foundations regarding our responsibility to care for God`s creation and not to abuse it or exploit it for the selfish and shortsighted purposes. The Scriptures are clear regarding the value which God places on His creation.
I presented this one-sided, or biased, material because the Scriptures are one-sided and biased on behalf of our stewardship of His earth.
The second segment of my article is a very abbreviated report of recent legislation which clearly will harm the environment and create greater health risks for all Americans. Every environmental decision made by the 104th Congress is regressive; and this places our air, water, and food at greater risk. Accurate reporting must be one-sided or biased since no positive measures have been taken by this Congress on behalf of our environment.
For these reasons I therefore am pleading guilty as charged.
Sincerely,
W David Lockard
